Well the economy has tanked. All manufacturing has fled the country. We are in a terrible mess but perhaps the politicians will rescue us.
What were politicians thinking when they signed these free trade agreements? Are they working for some foreign power? How could they sell their constituents down the river? Now the unemployment rate is over 10.2 percent nationally and the population is in an uproar. But what is the complaint about anyways? There is plenty of work.
The military is hiring. The US with bases around the world and two wars and two impending conflicts there is no shortage of military employment. So step right up and sign your life away. Lucky for the rich that there is no forced conscription and that this military is all “volunteer.” People that need to feed their families who have no gainful means of employment are stuck.
One wonders whether this is intentional. The only possibilities for employment in the US generally is the war munitions plants or in the service using these weapons. Also sales of these weapons still are in great demand around the world. Well we may not export anything else but war munitions, but what else do we have to export if we control the use of these weapons. The fact of the matter is that we need no manufacturing base in order to fulfill the basic needs of US citizens. The vast armament of military weapons enable the US to take pretty much whatever it wants at will. Using poor citizens, instilling in them patriotism while blinding them to the true intention of their mission, they serve as fodder for the ruling elite. The military may offer menial pay but ultimately good benefits and a good retirement plan if you live and last to retirement.
I wonder if it is just coincidental that the impoverished economy is an intended result to enforce conscription. At any rate it seems like an expected outcome, if it is not an intended outcome (come on the government knows what is happening) because of the massive taxpayers fortunes poured into the military services. With the demand for troops and and the hazardous nature of military duty some incentive must be implemented. What is better than the financial incentive. Let’s face it, the military would have a difficult time reaching it’s quota without the dismal economy. Universal conscription is not the preferred option because of the risk of a public outcry by the privileged classes. The military industrial complex no longer is an aspect of US life but has become the only game in town. The international business conglomerates have no allegiance to the US and it’s workers. They happily abandon the US workers and happily subject them to world conflict, those being asked to lose their lives for the interest of business and the ruling class.
The US simply provides the brute force that constrains those who would obstruct our policies of controlling the worlds resources. But if the world conglomerates have no allegiance to the US worker then how are these spoils to be distributed? Certainly the wheel for the war industry must be greased and the military work force must have the basics for life in order to serve their function in allegiance to their capitalist bosses. Ultimately of course the capitalists are looking to acquire the greatest profits at the least expense. If this means moving former US jobs to sweat shops in the third world so be it.
One might wonder why the US is awarded this function of being the world’s defenders of the capitalists. Couldn’t this be outsourced too? Some countries may not be so malleable when it comes to corporate influence. The corruption of the US government is so pronounced it aint funny. Bribery is legal. What else would you call a politician that is bred from infancy with special interest money who is to serve their whole career for their oligarchical cronies. If for a second they drop the ball they are consigned to obscurity as they would be attacked by the corporate media and all funding would be removed for future campaigns. This spells disaster. The fact of the matter is business owns the government and indirectly (well not so indirectly) the war machine. Eventually the military itself may be outsourced if suitable corrupt and trustworthy governments can be found with a hungry military which is willing to die for less.
Stay tuned, the next act is coming soon.
One of the classic problems in philosophy is Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover”. The question is how can something move and at the same time move itself? One problem with this idea is is that what is moved the mover? We are drawn into an infinite regress. We have the thing that moved moved by a prior mover which in turn must have a prior mover moving it. So we never arrive at a state of stasis and always must look for previous movers.
Another problem is that if something creates something then the thing it creates must be distinct from that which was created. But when something is created the thing it creates is foreign to the creator. If this creation is foreign to God then how can God be all-powerful? It seems clear that the thing God creates is limited in contrast to God’s infinite power. How can this be? It seems that the thing that the infinite God creates must be divine itself, but if this is so how are we to decide that it is in fact separate? Also closely related is the question of how can something created by God have nothing in common with God if God is infinite (e.g., encompassing all)? This is one reason for the angels and later the Christ which tied together the infinite and the finite.
The one way to address these problems is to avoid at least directly that the connection between the creator is that which moves and the created that which lies in stasis. Asian thought addresses these issues in a different way. In Taoism there is the trinity of Non-Being, Being and the 10,000 things. Non-Being can be thought of as pure potentiality, like an acorn that grows into a great oak tree. All of the great oaks potential lies in the acorn although it is clear that the great oak is not the acorn and are at least in this sense separate from the great oak but not the oak itself. Likewise when thinking of the 10,000 things, actually representing all of the diversity in the world, especially within humankind, one can characterize the difference between individual (the 10,000 things), the gross aggregate components of the universe (e.g., Being) and creative potentiality (e.g., Non-Being) where humans draw their difference from Non-Being and Being by it’s status as an ethical being. Non-Being then is potential, and Being is existence then the individual is morality. Morality is the individual human component and contribution to the infinite. It is clear that humans could not exist without existence and this existence could not exist without the potentiality or possibility of Non-Being (e.g., the potential of existence). Likewise Non-Being would not be pure potentiality if it did not potentiate Being or existence. And of course also Being would not be without the existence of “things” in the universe (e.g., human beings for example). So we can see that each aspect of the Tao (e.g., Non-Being, Being and the 10,000 things) depend on each other and in fact are ultimately inseparable. Yet by the same token the manifestation of each is unique (at least conceptually). No causal factor is implied because there is no hierarchy of factors and all are necessary and essential (Non-Being, Being and the 10,000 things). Since there is no primary mover then the uniquely western problem of which came first the chicken or the egg is not played out (e.g., the Aristotelian Mover and the Moved). Non-Being is conceptual but dynamic rather than being a discrete entity and this serves well as illustration.
Hinduism has struggled with this problem between the moved and the mover. It has tried to resolve this problem by stating that that which is infinite or eternal (e.g., Brahman) is that which is “real” but that which exists (e.g., the material world) is simply an illusion. While not really solving the problem of the unmoved mover because the question is how can an illusion come out of that which is fundamentally real, but it is also clearly nonintuitive (and I think sometimes it is safe to trust our intuitions) where that which is intangible (atemporal and aspatial ) is that which is real and that which is tangible (the temporal and the spatial) is that which is an illusion. Logically it is difficult to see why such things might be and seems difficult to defend.
Buddhism on the other hands simply throws out the metaphysical aspect of this discussion (e.g., God, the infinite, Non-Being) and talks about the practical aspect of things where we live in the world and therefore our focus should address the problems of the world. Unfortunately this seems to just ignore or throw out the foundational problem of the unmoved mover which moves something else. Buddhism does advance the theory of dependent origination which escapes the problem of the unmoved/moved mover problem because everything that exists is dependent on everything else. Therefore there is no need to posit that which is essential or primal. But one problem that needs to be addressed it seems is why are things as they are? How did things get to be as they are? Are the things truly real if they don’t depend on everything else to exist? This draws back on the question that “Do we really exist?” Like Hinduism, Buddhism embraces the idea of reincarnation but if we do not exist essentially then what is reincarnated? How can certain aspects of one’s lives be carried over to the subsequent existence? It seems that Buddhism can’t have it both ways by ignoring both creation and the created, at the same time, by using dependent origination.
It is important to note that things do exist or at least seem to. We are constantly getting sensory feedback of this fact. It is easy to examine the logic of this fact.
For something to exist it must be composed of the aggregates of existence (e.g., your car, the stars, your house, your children, etc.). If this were not true then of course nothing would or could exist. If there were no existence then the potential of existence would not be part of the equation either because this potential must ultimately realize something or no potential is there as stated before. But it is even simpler than this because there must be the things of existence for there to be existence for without existence we would arrive at the Buddhism void or nothingness. This void or nothingness cannot be objectified so cannot even be talked about. It is a mystical concept. Many might claim, and they might be right, that to talk about this Void is impossible and therefore ridiculous to contemplate. Ordinarily you are not going to get very far in a conversation when talking about the void. At any rate it seems to talk about existence and the void as being the same in the same breath is to be non-intuitive and bizarre.
But it seems that we do exist, that is if we are not deluded. Of course if we are deluded that fact “a priori” determines that we do in fact exist. So ipso facto we do exist! This reminds me of Descartes “I think therefore I am” but avoids the mind/body problem: (e.g., how can an atemporal aspatial “thing” [the mind] have a relationship between that and the spatial and temporal thing [the body] where in fact they never seem to meet). The fact is that for there to be existence things must exist. We avoid the Mover/Unmoved Mover dilemma. We are drawn out of this monism (e.g., oneness) because if we do not and cannot assert the void and don’t believe that which we take as existing is not and cannot be illusion then existence is, can and must be distinct from some metaphysical construct. For how could these “things” be at all if they did not exist. It seems existence is the only logical answer.
So rest assured that you do exist because it now has been proven (as if you had any doubt in the first place). I ‘m sure in fact you haven’t really questioned this unless you are on your way to the insane asylum. Therefore a distinction need not be made beween the mover (e.g., the creator) and the thing moved (e.g., that which finds itself in the state of stasis) because things must be as they are and cannot be any other way. When you have an accident or enjoy a drink you can feel comfortable that your sensations and feelings are in fact yours and that they must be so. But of course you already knew that!
It seems in infinity all things remain possible and necessary (including existence) so then what is the nature of the infinite?
I’ve decided not to continue work on the next edition of the Yoga Party. To do this would entail a lot of work and I’m not convinced the interest is there. As always I am available to answer questions. Also I will no longer be publishing articles about International Health. My writings on International Health have been among the most searched on this site, but regretfully I will not be studying in the field at least for the time being.
Nevertheless this blog will remain active. I will rely more on speculative and analytical thought from a philosophical bent with an eye toward publishing another book not necessarily parallel with my book The Yoga Party: Philosophical Writings, although what this might exactly be remains to be seen. When I write I write more about what I feel than what I think. I know this seems contradictory. It’s more inspiration than anything else.
So for now at least The Yoga Party: Philosophical Writings (as I told someone recently) will be something that I did once. There comes a time I suppose when an author has to leave a book behind and work on something new.